if the sun were beaming down from above the nose would shine underneath, and the spray at the end on the boat? the boat appears to be balancing in the middle. With all that gold and precious metal this thing is an alien craft to sit that high in the water

You know what I'd do with that much gold? I'd get some random company to coat it on a boat, taking their word that they used every ounce. Then I'd put the boat in the ocean to let it corrode and get scraped off with barnacle removal.

The mental gymnastics required to justify the perspective necessary to commission the creation of an abomination like this is something I attributed to only the most deluded. I can't imagine wishing that kind of ignorance on my worst enemy, let alone myself.

The world I grew up in valued hard working people and the contributions of real people to the day to day lives of everyone around them. The idea that anyone would strive to live a lifestyle that effectively grinds up lesser humans en mass to fuel it makes me question my own moral code that insists that every possible alternative must be tried regardless of it's sanity.

Should not someone who made money, no earned money, be able to spend it as they want?

There is a big difference between what one CAN do and what is best. I could buy up a series of orphanages, raze them to the ground, and put up big gold-plated monuments to myself. I would deserve all the scorn in the world for doing so, however.

I am sure this "abomination" required a lot of work and created more than a few jobs for the unemployed out there.

Probably far less than could have been created by investing in more worthwhile endeavors.

Is spending 1B dollars for a professional sports team an "abomination" that rubs it in the "working class" peoples face?

A sports team that I'd imagine employs many, many more people, and brings something of value, both economically and culturally to the local community? No, not even anywhere near this abomination.

As opposed to societies such as N. Korea, or China where this would be impossible.

I'm not so sure this isn't possible in China anymore. And we can dispense with the lie that suspicion of the ultra-wealthy their stranglehold on American society will turn us into North Korea right about now.

A thought comes to mind: If you have the money(because it is yours after all!) and you want it because well it is a status symbol and no one else has it because yours is completely unique......nothing more than a lavish prerogative. This is is nothing new to the world of the rich, Status symbols of whatever they want when they want it and how is timeless go back and look at the wonders of the world for instance. Hell if the guy wants to spend that kind of cash on this item more power to him.

As far as this thing being able to float remember this craft is 100ft long. Take into account most craft use ballast to balance their craft in the water so that it does not lean to one side or capsize. Now put this into action the ballast could work differently in this craft, lighter and set up to use helium tanks to aid in stabilizing buoyancy along with the natural weight of the Gold Alloy bottom hull and yes this craft is very viable.

As far as photoshopping if the picture was taken from another boat and has had to partially block the sun to avoid glare from the hull and the fact that when boats are hitting the throttle the back hunkers down while the front lifts up eh possible. It could also be the fact that sometimes before the product is dumped into the water the client wants to see what the product would look like in the water so it could be superimposed over another smaller or similar sized craft to give lifelike effect.

However, if someone can provide evidence that this "Malaysian businessman" is a philanthropist that has given a massive amount of his wealth to humanitarian causes, like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, I will gladly retract my attack and grant him his abomination.

If I had 3 billion dollars burning a hole in my pocket, I would definitely spend it on enriching myself in every way possible, I'd probably buy a robotic exoskeleton made with platinum/titanium and diamond and outfit it with satellite-guided rocket launchers and a chain gun.

Then what I would do is use my exoskeleton to take other peoples natural resources and money, so that I could make my exoskeleton even bigger and better until I could topple small governments. Then I would build an army outfitted with diamond/platinum robotic exoskeletons, and conquer the world. Thankfully, I can simply take whatever money I need for the exoskeletons from weaker countries. I can have all the natural resources on this planet in order to further my interests.

Watch out Ranger, my army of robotic exoskeletons is coming for you and your money and natural resources!

oh and a side note: More often that not status symbols and symbols of power attract the like minded and financially capable. Usually these things allow high tier ppl to get together and have a bit of fun. However as we all know, most of the time even at times of having fun the rich look for and take opportunity when it arises. Many different things are used as mediums and yachts are no exception. So could this be a major ploy by this businessman to catch some very eccentric eyes? Possibly and probably the main aim to make more business, money equals power and the outward showing of such is the old standby. I can imagine this man being extremely shrewd and this being his way of pushing his business to the next level. This could definitely be a way to cause millions of jobs to poof into existence as a result of a 3 day pleasure cruise with a few other billionaires.

Just saying this since there are a few who want to go billionaire bashing due to lavishness and oh he could do this and that with the money. The rich do business in a much different way than the normal corporate world in the business room.......

However, if someone can provide evidence that this "Malaysian businessman" is a philanthropist that has given a massive amount of his wealth to humanitarian causes, like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, I will gladly retract my attack and grant him his abomination.

Pffft whatever LB if he creates Millions of jobs from a few pleasure cruises or fishing trips in that thing then hey he has done that humanitarian service as you call it. Honestly he doesn't have to explain crap to anyone and could easily give you and anyone else the finger if he wants to after all it is not YOUR money it is his so in short lump it.

Pffft whatever Z. The idea that a business man needs a billion dollar gold plated yacht to hold a few board meetings is nonsensical to the extreme. And you can stop pretending like you know he's using it to create jobs. I'm not going to entertain the idea that you have some insight into this guys motives. Stop implying that's what its for, like it's a statement of fact. Oh, and even if he was using that disgusting thing for business purposes, that's not "humanitarian service." It's business.

ROFL LB you take what you think and do the same and expect it to be taken in the same way - Pot, Kettle Black?

Point is neither of us know and you going ape over it and taking it personal when I say something opposite you is truly nonsensical to the extreme. You are welcome to your opinion as am I soooo yeah Lump it jack!

Z, it's your attitude that is most annoying. Your opinion, well, that's juvenile at best. "Rich people have always done this" and "he MIGHT be using it to create jobs, so I'll assume that's true" are all you have, along with arrogant, trollish little barbs like "lump it jack!" It's no wonder so many people on this forum have problems dealing with you. It's because you throw these child-like little fits and demand respect in return. You've earned none from me.

Point is that it is mine LB and you have no right to trample it just because it opposes yours.

"Rich people have always done this" and "he MIGHT be using it to create jobs,

Point was he COULD, I never said he absolutely did or would.

so I'll assume that's true" are all you have, along with arrogant, trollish little barbs like "lump it jack!"

Hehehe yeah sure LB, not trollish or arrogant if it is true. If you asked him in person to show something as reasonable proof as to why he built it I would laugh in your face if he flipped you off and told you to go to hell. You would have to lump it LB, you cannot impose your views on someone else.

It's no wonder so many people on this forum have problems dealing with you.

Honestly I do not care about that LLB, I have a right to voice my opinion and you know what the more ppl try to shut me up the louder I get. Case in point eh?

It's because you throw these child-like little fits and demand respect in return. You've earned none from me.

Not really but if this is what you think then more power to you. This is a freaking game LB, however just like in the real world I will tell you the same things. My opinion is mine and I have a right to it. Now during this whole thing I simply said hey there could be another reason for this thing being in existence and the first thing you decided to do was try and discredit me personally? You really call that respect? If it is then I definitely do not want it from you LB. Heh, all I have gotten from this is that it is not important.

All I was saying is there is more than one view, and honestly LB there is you will have to understand that and take into consideration your opinion is not the only one that counts.

Anything further and I really don't care you can have this thread LB it's AAAAALLLLLLL yours :-)

Do you feel better now LB? I'll say this again it is a game, discussion board or not it IS in a game so honestly take a chill pill. Yes you do have to lump it just like I do it is HIS money to do with it however HE sees fit. Your opinion, mine and everyone elses is honestly moot in the face of that fact. Your argument was a strawman just like mine I simply pointed it out. I also pointed out that there is more than one view you didn't like that and just because YOU see an attitude does not mean one is actually there LB. It is simply a perception you have decided to take as a fact concerning me this does not make it true.

Absolutely correct, it is however my right to publicly revile and shame such a wasteful person. A world accepting of individual excesses as if there are no consequences for the behavior, no price paid for this insanity is going to find itself quickly irrelevant.

Anyway, my bet is the 3 Billion Yacht sinks after hitting a reef that wasn't properly shown on the $40 dollar fish-finder/GPS unit that is the only navigation equipment the owner can figure out how to use.

I'm not buying the argument, Ranger. It's not a political debate of "should people be able to spend their money as they please." Of course they should. These are just comments of "holy crap, he blew 3 million quid on this thing?"

You know it's no surprise that people will have gut responses to what's considered a vast amount of frivolous opulence. There has to be a part of you that thinks "almost $5 million into a depreciating asset?!"

If someone has the money, the person can blow it as he/she wants. But the rest of us will burst out laughing when a gold-coated boat hits rocks and the Lloyd's of London policy refuses to pay out.

And Ranger, the question of "who decides" is faulty. Of course the person with the money decides. The issue is who gets to have opinions, and we all do. So to answer your questions in my personal opinion:
A $75m home in Seattle is too much unless there's reason to think the property will appreciate enough to offset the taxes and upkeep. Real estate is generally thought of as an investment, after all. But at that price point, it's a dubious move.
A $200k car is too much unless the buyer grosses $1m/yr.
A $15k vacation depends on what/where it is. I'd be willing to drop $10k to hike Everest or $15k to spend a year backpacking the globe. If it's just a week in Belize, then it's far too much.

And I still think you find $4.8 billion (I made a typo with million) to be nuts for a dry-docked showpiece that will depreciate.

But then again, I should say "would depreciate," for it must exist first. All we have are a tabloid, a self-promoting gold-coating businessman, a mysterious figure who can't be tracked down, a completely over the top story, and a fake image. I'm sticking with hijinx.

So, the average person in the midwest making 40k a year can only buy a 10k car? People can save, I'd like to have a car that's worth anywhere from 60k-100k one day, and I can guarantee I won't be making 300-500k a year.

As for my view on this overall idea, I think as long as you are providing for your family, giving your kids a good life ( doesn't need to be extravagant, sometimes I think this is worse ), then in my view, nothing you do with your money is wrong. It's your life, live it how you want. ( Nobody better take this to mean that I think it's okay if someone spends their money to buy a nuke that I'm okay with it.... )

Since any of us posting here have pcs we have been born somewhere where there is opportunity. It is up to the individual to go out and grab it, no one is going to hand it out.

Sure, its impossible for us to achieve the kind of wealth in this story, but to be well off is attainable.

You just need to accept the 70-80 work week for at least 3-4 years, making min wage if you have to. Invest wisely, grab some real estate and you are set. It will take 10-15 years, but when all is said and done you will be set.

I started on the verge of bankruptcy after my health problems, and worked my ass off through multiple jobs at the bottom rung. A few promotions along the way and now I am very thankful to be managing a successful multi-million dollar business. I have the date circled when I will have my first million in capital.

Boasting? Maybe...but ANYONE in this thread can do the same.

Dictating how others spend their money is wrong. Go out, make the capital yourself, and spend it how you please.

That's kind of another thing I like about spend money how you want approach, you can also make money how you want. So, if you want to work at a minimum wage job, then play video games all night, then more power to you!!!

So we've established that you bristle at the idea of tax payer dollars going to wasteful extravagance... why is it different when the money is "earned" as you put it? I'd regard TARP funds as far more legitimately acquired than the funds stolen from the world by the criminals at goldman sachs...

So we've established that you bristle at the idea of tax payer dollars going to wasteful extravagance... why is it different when the money is "earned" as you put it? I'd regard TARP funds as far more legitimately acquired than the funds stolen from the world by the criminals at goldman sachs...

If you cannot understand the difference between earning money yourself and having tax dollars go to spendthrift programs, this is a discussion neither of us can endure.

What happened in the banking industry was indeed criminal. TARP was in some ways criminal. But that is different than this person spending his own money on his own boat.

If you can show me how any of this 3B dollars was ill-gotten, then perhaps you have a point about spending it wrong.

However, this thread was not about TARP, or Goldman-Sacks. It was about 1 person buying a 3B buck boat.

Something I congratulate him on. Obvious something you do not.

We can certainly get into a discussion thread about the benefits and downsides of the TARP bailout or the auto bailout or the union bailout or the stimulus. But that is for another thread.

the only reason i brought up tarp was to point out that not all capitalist dollars earned are equal.

those people getting bonuses from tarp bailout banks were looked upon very negatively, but evidently someone thought they earned those bonuses.

the main goal was to show that not all capitalist earning are inherently pure just because we call them capitalist. there is much wrong done in the world from capitalism just as there is good. we definitely shouldn't worship capitalism as if it is some high ideal or pure system to strive for in america.

I'm going to have to echo Ranger on this one. Do you think the government in some way earned the tax dollars it received and therefore can spend it how it wants. No, it receives the tax dollars in a contract, and it needs to fulfill it's side of the contract. This man, had he really existed and gotten his money legitimately, has already fulfilled his side of some contract, received his money, and can now do with it as he pleases. Could there be better things to do than case an entire boat in gold, I can think of a few, but if he wants to do it, more power to him.

the main goal was to show that not all capitalist earning are inherently pure just because we call them capitalist. there is much wrong done in the world from capitalism just as there is good. we definitely shouldn't worship capitalism as if it is some high ideal or pure system to strive for in america.

Aye dudemus, but this seems to be a different discussion to me. We could discuss all year about what is earned and what isn't. But, I think the underlying idea that I care about, is that assuming he received the money legitimately, is it his right to spend the money as he wishes. And I think the clear answer to that is a resounding yes.

pardon me then, it seemed the discussion was do we have the right to judge his spending?

It is, but you have to make assumptions to have a clear discussion, you either have to assume, that he made his money legitimately, or he did not. If he didn't, then we know right where that money should go, it should go to pay repercussions for whatever wrong he did. That assumption is a rather boring one though, so let's look at the assumption that he did get the money legitimately. Then the question is as simple as:

Can a rich man who fairly earned his money spend it as he will, be that charity, or on a 5B USD boat?

I can't see anyone saying that men who justly earned there money can't do with it what they will.

The mental gymnastics required to justify the perspective necessary to commission the creation of an abomination like this is something I attributed to only the most deluded. I can't imagine wishing that kind of ignorance on my worst enemy, let alone myself.

And that is the kind of post I refer to. Someone who obvious thinks my opinion is delusional and incomplete with rational reasoning.

Kind of hard to try to respect the other side when you get called names. Typical behaviour, however, of some people in America and the world when you do not agree with them.

pardon me then, it seemed the discussion was do we have the right to judge his spending?

And I might of misinterpreted this, of course you have the right to say, wow that guy's foolish, but it's still his right to be foolish. I think it's quite foolish to spend that much money on a boat, when you could just buy every video game in the world, and probably a few small video game companies. (That's what I'll do when I'm rich)

Regarding the ongoing issue of whether he has the right to blow his money in this way, I will quote myself:

There is a big difference between what one CAN do and what is best. I could buy up a series of orphanages, raze them to the ground, and put up big gold-plated monuments to myself. I would deserve all the scorn in the world for doing so, however.

the better question in my mind is what if we found that the boat was bought, at least in part, with bonus money paid by a bank receiving tarp funds during the height of the u.s. recession?

I agree with Ranger that this is a separate issue, and we cannot assume this. I will again quote something I wrote earlier.

Yes, he COULD (have used it for meetings to create jobs). Just like he could do the same to lay people off, or gather secret donations to Freedom Works or another GOP super PAC that works to funnel even more of the world's wealth up to him. My point was that you cannot argue from that position unless you know it to be true, the same way I cannot argue from those things I just made up.

Yes, he COULD (have used it for meetings to create jobs). Just like he could do the same to lay people off, or gather secret donations to Freedom Works or another GOP super PAC that works to funnel even more of the world's wealth up to him. My point was that you cannot argue from that position unless you know it to be true, the same way I cannot argue from those things I just made up.

Just like he could be like George Soros and bribe NPR with millions of dollars. Or be like Obama and try to raise 1T dollars to buy a presidency twice.

Works both ways.

But back to the OP, I again think it is great he did this if it is what he wanted.

you just couldn't handle lb agreeing with you and had to throw down more soapboxes?

This is the Republican way of thinking. "Oh, you and I have something in common? Let me move further to the right so I can fight with you!" Ranger himself has done this several times on these forums when I try to agree with him. He will find a way to throw it in my face.

You agreed with me certainly. But then nicely snuck in a cheap shot at "gather secret donations to Freedom Works or another GOP super PAC that works to funnel even more of the world's wealth up to him".

While I tried to refain from political discourse in this thread. you cheaply snuck in a cheap shot.

So do not blame me soapbox moments. Blame LB as he has done numerous times in the past. Cheap shot LB should be his new name.

Just want to make sure I read your stuff right LB, you're agreeing with me right? He has the right to spend his money however he wants, although this was probably not the best decision...

I'm saying it's not a question of what the law allows him to do.

To clarify my position a bit I'll quote myself again, like a narcissistic little dink:

However, if someone can provide evidence that this "Malaysian businessman" is a philanthropist that has given a massive amount of his wealth to humanitarian causes, like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, I will gladly retract my attack and grant him his abomination.

At this point this is all an academic exercise anyway, now that we know the abomination is thankfully a hoax.

You agreed with me certainly. But then nicely snuck in a cheap shot at ..

Like you did on my truck donation thread?

While I tried to refrain from political discourse in this thread.

This is a political thread, whether you realize it or not.

you cheaply snuck in a cheap shot.

It was not a cheap shot. Nothing there was directed at you, nor did it contain a reference to you. You take things too personally. It was a list of hypotheticals I conjured up to counter Z's statement, nothing more.

So do not blame me soapbox moments. Blame LB as he has done numerous times in the past. Cheap shot LB should be his new name.

Hypocrisy.

I think 1T is insane.

Is it because much of the money came from donations from the middle class? I remember Bush had a big problem with that "soft money" when he ran against Kerry.

Yeah, I never really consider laws when I discuss topics like rights, as laws don't give you rights, they're just suppose to protect them.

So, let me lay out a really simple question for you LB. If a man were to completely justly make his money, provide for his family, do some good here and there, and be an overall good man, should he have the right, to do whatever he wants, with any left over money he has?

And when I use the word man, I mean person obviously. Once women finish there work in the kitchen, they can do whatever they want as well :)

Define "completely and justly." Is this a guy who has labored 50+ hours a week actually building this nation, or is he a wall street banker? Is this a guy who invested in clean, green technology, or is he the guy with the bright idea to lay off 50,000 workers so the top executives can take bigger bonuses?

A lot of legal jobs I find utterly contemptible, like corporate lobbyist, or Bank of America CEO. Selling marijuana is a more just profession in my eyes than what these villains do.

provide for his family, do some good here and there

One does not need a family to be a good man, so I'll leave that one. As for the second part, how much good? "I bought a box of girl scout cookies once" doesn't really equate to giving away billions to philanthropic causes. If we're talking about the latter, I've already mentioned that I think people like Bill Gates have certainly "earned" their wealth.

and be an overall good man,

This may come across as a bit sharp, but believe me I mean no offense by it. But judging from some of your previous posts, what you and I consider to be good men are two very different things. This will need further clarification.

should he have the right, to do whatever he wants, with any left over money he has?

Generally speaking, yes. In some ways even on things that are currently illegal. It's the part about how much "left over money" he has where liberals and conservatives disagree. But greedy opulence should always be scorned.

It's not about telling people what they do with their money, it's about bringing back a now lost to the american populace version of morality that found this kind of stuff repugnant instead of as Ranger stated wishing for the day when it's me...

So, let me lay out a really simple question for you LB. If a man were to completely justly make his money, provide for his family, do some good here and there, and be an overall good man,

LB, that's why I left these up for assumptions, b/c we could debate all day about the definitions of these words, I was just saying, if we assume these to be true, by whoever's judging, then make the decision. So, I think under these assumptions, we agree...

Well, I don't think anyone should have that much money, but I am clearly not a socialist. I don't think anyone should have that much money for a few reasons.

1. I think the basis of a good capitalism is one where the rewards for doing hard or talented work reward you enough, so that the best people do the jobs that require the most talent/skill/hardest work. This reward creates incentive for skillful people to work hard to make more money. However, this incentive approaches an asymptote. As you start to reward people more and more, there starts to be a unnoticeable difference in their work ethic, therefore you should stop increasing their rewards. Under a perfect economic balance then, I would assume that it's impossible to achieve 5B dollars for you work.

2. If you have this much money, you should be doing something worth while with it, like re-investing, or giving it to charity.

Keeping these two in mind, I want to make something very clear. I don't think someone should have this much money, but I do believe there should be the *possibility* that someone could have this much money. In no way am I saying the government should have the right to take away people's money once they get a certain amount, I just think under my dream conditions, this would never happen. Now, whether or not Nat agrees with me, I highly doubt it.

If you spent that much money on research and development, you could easily move humanity forward a great deal in terms of knowledge of biology, medicine, technology, etc. I personally think people who are super rich have a responsibility to use their money on fruitful ventures that will enrich humanity while also possibly enriching themselves.

Some people in this thread think that super rich people have no responsibility to anyone but themselves. I wonder if that is because they have the commonly held view embodied in this quote by John Steinbeck:"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -John Steinbeck

My view is sort of similar to that Titan. I think there is a certain point though where having more money is a bane to society and the government should be able to tax it. It is probably somewhere around 25 mil adjusted for inflation to an individual where you have essentially beaten the game of life and I think the government should be able to tax your assets above that amount at that point. Not take it all but just bring you to a new level of difficulty to get more money and retain it.

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. - Tocqueville

What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class. - Tocqueville

All wealth is the product of labor. - Locke

Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. -Locke

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. - Jefferson

Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing. - Reagan

Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. - Bastiat

Readings and speeches of the above men are where I have gathered a lot of my views, entwined with some of my own morals. I don't think it's too bad of company.

Lol, I just grabbed a few that I could remember from readings. I still didn't find one like I wanted, although I remember one from the book, "The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail." It's not a direct quote of Thoreau's but here it is anyway.

"Every Human being has an inalienable right to snore. Provided it does not interfere with the inalienable right of other men to snore."

I really liked that Thoreau guy. It gets across the point I was making, you have the right to free will, do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't stop someone from exercising their own rights.

"Democrats don't want to eliminate capitalism or competition, but they'd like it if some kids didn't have to go to a crummy school in a rotten neighborhood while others get to go to a great school and their Dad gets them into Harvard. Because when that happens "achieving the American dream" is easy for some, and just a fantasy for others." -- Bill Maher

"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money." -- George Carlin

I'm not saying those are bad quotes, but I think who said them are a little funny in comparison, Locke and Jefferson compared to Carlin and Maher; I just found that funny.

Those aren't in a strict dichotomy against my beliefs either. I'm hardly a staunch republican. I'd classify myself as middle of the road, supply-side economics believer, who believes in free will, but with a strong moral background. I'm kind of like a Libertarian, but I don't like using that word, because I'm not completely sure what goes along with it, or what it excludes.

This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003CiU">Most Expensive Yacht Ever Made</a>